Search Results

Search found 12598 results on 504 pages for 'beta testing'.

Page 161/504 | < Previous Page | 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168  | Next Page >

  • Book Review: Brownfield Application Development in .NET

    - by DotNetBlues
    I recently finished reading the book Brownfield Application Development in .NET by Kyle Baley and Donald Belcham.  The book is available from Manning.  First off, let me say that I'm a huge fan of Manning as a publisher.  I've found their books to be top-quality, over all.  As a Kindle owner, I also appreciate getting an ebook copy along with the dead tree copy.  I find ebooks to be much more convenient to read, but hard-copies are easier to reference. The book covers, surprisingly enough, working with brownfield applications.  Which is well and good, if that term has meaning to you.  It didn't for me.  Without retreading a chunk of the first chapter, the authors break code bases into three broad categories: greenfield, brownfield, and legacy.  Greenfield is, essentially, new development that hasn't had time to rust and is (hopefully) being approached with some discipline.  Legacy applications are those that are more or less stable and functional, that do not expect to see a lot of work done to them, and are more likely to be replaced than reworked. Brownfield code is the gray (brown?) area between the two and the authors argue, quite effectively, that it is the most likely state for an application to be in.  Brownfield code has, in some way, been allowed to tarnish around the edges and can be difficult to work with.  Although I hadn't realized it, most of the code I've worked on has been brownfield.  Sometimes, there's talk of scrapping and starting over.  Sometimes, the team dismisses increased discipline as ivory tower nonsense.  And, sometimes, I've been the ignorant culprit vexing my future self. The book is broken into two major sections, plus an introduction chapter and an appendix.  The first section covers what the authors refer to as "The Ecosystem" which consists of version control, build and integration, testing, metrics, and defect management.  The second section is on actually writing code for brownfield applications and discusses object-oriented principles, architecture, external dependencies, and, of course, how to deal with these when coming into an existing code base. The ecosystem section is just shy of 140 pages long and brings some real meat to the matter.  The focus on "pain points" immediately sets the tone as problem-solution, rather than academic.  The authors also approach some of the topics from a different angle than some essays I've read on similar topics.  For example, the chapter on automated testing is on just that -- automated testing.  It's all well and good to criticize a project as conflating integration tests with unit tests, but it really doesn't make anyone's life better.  The discussion on testing is more focused on the "right" level of testing for existing projects.  Sometimes, an integration test is the best you can do without gutting a section of functional code.  Even if you can sell other developers and/or management on doing so, it doesn't actually provide benefit to your customers to rewrite code that works.  This isn't to say the authors encourage sloppy coding.  Far from it.  Just that they point out the wisdom of ignoring the sleeping bear until after you deal with the snarling wolf. The other sections take a similarly real-world, workable approach to the pain points they address.  As the section moves from technical solutions like version control and continuous integration (CI) to the softer, process issues of metrics and defect tracking, the authors begin to gently suggest moving toward a zero defect count.  While that really sounds like an unreasonable goal for a lot of ongoing projects, it's quite apparent that the authors have first-hand experience with taming some gruesome projects.  The suggestions are grounded and workable, and the difficulty of some situations is explicitly acknowledged. I have to admit that I started getting bored by the end of the ecosystem section.  No matter how valuable I think a good project manager or business analyst is to a successful ALM, at the end of the day, I'm a gear-head.  Also, while I agreed with a lot of the ecosystem ideas, in theory, I didn't necessarily feel that a lot of the single-developer projects that I'm often involved in really needed that level of rigor.  It's only after reading the sidebars and commentary in the coding section that I had the context for the arguments made in favor of a strong ecosystem supporting the development process.  That isn't to say that I didn't support good product management -- indeed, I've probably pushed too hard, on occasion, for a strong ALM outside of just development.  This book gave me deeper insight into why some corners shouldn't be cut and how damaging certain sins of omission can be. The code section, though, kept me engaged for its entirety.  Many technical books can be used as reference material from day one.  The authors were clear, however, that this book is not one of these.  The first chapter of the section (chapter seven, over all) addresses object oriented (OO) practices.  I've read any number of definitions, discussions, and treatises on OO.  None of the chapter was new to me, but it was a good review, and I'm of the opinion that it's good to review the foundations of what you do, from time to time, so I didn't mind. The remainder of the book is really just about how to apply OOP to existing code -- and, just because all your code exists in classes does not mean that it's object oriented.  That topic has the potential to be extremely condescending, but the authors miraculously managed to never once make me feel like a dolt or that they were wagging their finger at me for my prior sins.  Instead, they continue the "pain points" and problem-solution presentation to give concrete examples of how to apply some pretty academic-sounding ideas.  That's a point worth emphasizing, as my experience with most OO discussions is that they stay in the academic realm.  This book gives some very, very good explanations of why things like the Liskov Substitution Principle exist and why a corporate programmer should even care.  Even if you know, with absolute certainty, that you'll never have to work on an existing code-base, I would recommend this book just for the clarity it provides on OOP. This book goes beyond just theory, or even real-world application.  It presents some methods for fixing problems that any developer can, and probably will, encounter in the wild.  First, the authors address refactoring application layers and internal dependencies.  Then, they take you through those layers from the UI to the data access layer and external dependencies.  Finally, they come full circle to tie it all back to the overall process.  By the time the book is done, you're left with a lot of ideas, but also a reasonable plan to begin to improve an existing project structure. Throughout the book, it's apparent that the authors have their own preferred methodology (TDD and domain-driven design), as well as some preferred tools.  The "Our .NET Toolbox" is something of a neon sign pointing to that latter point.  They do not beat the reader over the head with anything resembling a "One True Way" mentality.  Even for the most emphatic points, the tone is quite congenial and helpful.  With some of the near-theological divides that exist within the tech community, I found this to be one of the more remarkable characteristics of the book.  Although the authors favor tools that might be considered Alt.NET, there is no reason the advice and techniques given couldn't be quite successful in a pure Microsoft shop with Team Foundation Server.  For that matter, even though the book specifically addresses .NET, it could be applied to a Java and Oracle shop, as well.

    Read the article

  • Why people don't patch and upgrade?!?

    - by Mike Dietrich
    Discussing the topic "Why Upgrade" or "Why not Upgrade" is not always fun. Actually the arguments repeat from customer to customer. Typically we hear things such as: A PSU or Patch Set introduces new bugs A new PSU or Patch Set introduces new features which lead to risk and require application verification  Patching means risk Patching changes the execution plans Patching requires too much testing Patching is too much work for our DBAs Patching costs a lot of money and doesn't pay out And to be very honest sometimes it's hard for me to stay calm in such discussions. Let's discuss some of these points a bit more in detail. A PSU or Patch Set introduces new bugsWell, yes, that is true as no software containing more than some lines of code is bug free. This applies to Oracle's code as well as too any application or operating system code. But first of all, does that mean you never patch your OS because the patch may introduce new flaws? And second, what is the point of saying "it introduces new bugs"? Does that mean you will never get rid of the mean issues we know about and we fixed already? Scroll down from MOS Note:161818.1 to the patch release you are on, no matter if it's 10.2.0.4 or 11.2.0.3 and check for the Known Issues And Alerts.Will you take responsibility to know about all these issues and refuse to upgrade to 11.2.0.4? I won't. A new PSU or Patch Set introduces new featuresOk, we can discuss that. Offering new functionality within a database patch set is a dubious thing. It has advantages such as in 11.2.0.4 where we backported Database Redaction to. But this is something you will only use once you have an Advanced Security license. I interpret that statement I've heard quite often from customers in a different way: People don't want to get surprises such as new behaviour. This certainly gives everybody a hard time. And we've had many examples in the past (SESSION_CACHED_CURSROS in 10.2.0.4,  _DATAFILE_WRITE_ERRORS_CRASH_INSTANCE in 11.2.0.2 and others) where those things weren't documented, not even in the README. Thanks to many friends out there I learned about those as well. So new behaviour is the topic people consider as risky - not really new features. And just to point this out: A PSU never brings in new features or new behaviour by definition! Patching means riskDoes it really mean risk? Yes, there were issues in the past (and sometimes in the present as well) where a patch didn't get installed correctly. But personally I consider it way more risky to not patch. Keep that in mind: The day Oracle publishes an PSU (or CPU) containing security fixes all the great security experts out there go public with their findings as well. So from that day on even my grandma can find out about those issues and try to attack somebody. Now a lot of people say: "My database does not face the internet." And I will answer: "The enemy is sitting already behind your firewalls. And knows potentially about these things." My statement: Not patching introduces way more risk to your environment than patching. Seriously! Patching changes the execution plansDo they really? I agree - there's a very small risk for this happening with Patch Sets. But not with PSUs or CPUs as they contain no optimizer fixes changing behaviour (but they may contain fixes curing wrong-query-result-bugs). But what's the point of a changing execution plan? In Oracle Database 11g it is so simple to be prepared. SQL Plan Management is a free EE feature - so once that occurs you'll put the plan into the Plan Baseline. Basta! Yes, you wouldn't like to get such surprises? Than please use the SQL Performance Analyzer (SPA) from Real Application Testing and you'll detect that easily upfront in minutes. And not to forget this, a plan change can also be very positive!Yes, there's a little risk with a database patchset - and we have many possibilites to detect this before patching. Patching requires too much testingWell, does it really? I have seen in the past 12 years how people test. There are very different efforts and approaches on this. I have seen people spending a hell of money on licenses or on project team staffing. And I have seen people sailing blindly without any tests just going the John-Wayne-approach.Proper tools will allow you to test easily without too much efforts. See the paragraph above. We have used Real Application Testing in so many customer projects reducing the amount of work spend on testing by over 50%. But apart from that at some point you will have to stop testing. If you don't you'll get lost and you'll burn money. There's no 100% guaranty. You will have to deal with a little risk as reaching the final 5% of certainty will cost you the same as it did cost to reach 95%. And doing this will lead to abnormal long product cycles that you'll run behind forever. And this will cost even more money. Patching is too much work for our DBAsPatching is a lot of work. I agree. And it's no fun work. It's boring, annoying. You don't learn much from that. That's why you should try to automate this task. Use the Database's Lifecycle Management Pack. And don't cry about the fact that it costs money. Yes it does. But it will ease the process and you'll save a lot of costs as you don't waste your valuable time with patching. Or use Oracle Database 12c Oracle Multitenant and patch either by unplug/plug or patch an entire container database with all PDBs with one patch in one task. We have customer reference cases proofing it saved them 75% of time, effort and cost since they've used Lifecycle Management Pack. So why don't you use it? Patching costs a lot of money and doesn't pay outWell, see my statements in the paragraph above. And it pays out as flying with a database with 100 known critical flaws in it which are already fixed by Oracle (such as in the Oct 2013 PSU for Oracle Database 12c) will cost ways more in case of failure or even data loss. Bet with me? Let me finally ask you some questions. What cell phone are you using and which OS does it run? Do you have an iPhone 5 and did you upgrade already to iOS 7.0.3? I've just encountered on mine that the alarm (which I rely on when traveling) has gotten now a dependency on the physical switch "sound on/off". If it is switched to "off" physically the alarm rings "silently". What a wonderful example of a behaviour change coming in with a patch set. Will this push you to stay with iOS5 or iOS6? No, because those have security flaws which won't be fixed anymore. What browser are you surfing with? Do you use Mozilla 3.6? Well, congratulations to all the hackers. It will be easy for them to attack you and harm your system. I'd guess you have the auto updater on.  Same for Google Chrome, Safari, IE. Right? -Mike The T.htmtableborders, .htmtableborders td, .htmtableborders th {border : 1px dashed lightgrey ! important;} html, body { border: 0px; } body { background-color: #ffffff; } img, hr { cursor: default }

    Read the article

  • Delight and Excite

    - by Applications User Experience
    Mick McGee, CEO & President, EchoUser Editor’s Note: EchoUser is a User Experience design firm in San Francisco and a member of the Oracle Usability Advisory Board. Mick and his staff regularly consult on Oracle Applications UX projects. Being part of a user experience design firm, we have the luxury of working with a lot of great people across many great companies. We get to help people solve their problems.  At least we used to. The basic design challenge is still the same; however, the goal is not necessarily to solve “problems” anymore; it is, “I want our products to delight and excite!” The question for us as UX professionals is how to design to those goals, and then how to assess them from a usability perspective. I’m not sure where I first heard “delight and excite” (A book? blog post? Facebook  status? Steve Jobs quote?), but now I hear these listed as user experience goals all the time. In particular, somewhat paradoxically, I routinely hear them in enterprise software conversations. And when asking these same enterprise companies what will make the project successful, we very often hear, “Make it like Apple.” In past days, it was “make it like Yahoo (or Amazon or Google“) but now Apple is the common benchmark. Steve Jobs and Apple were not secrets, but with Jobs’ passing and Apple becoming the world’s most valuable company in the last year, the impact of great design and experience is suddenly very widespread. In particular, users’ expectations have gone way up. Being an enterprise company is no shield to the general expectations that users now have, for all products. Designing a “Minimum Viable Product” The user experience challenge has historically been, to echo the words of Eric Ries (author of Lean Startup) , to create a “minimum viable product”: the proverbial, “make it good enough”. But, in our profession, the “minimum viable” part of that phrase has oftentimes, unfortunately, referred to the design and user experience. Technology typically dominated the focus of the biggest, most successful companies. Few have had the laser focus of Apple to also create and sell design and user experience alongside great technology. But now that Apple is the most valuable company in the world, copying their success is a common undertaking. Great design is now a premium offering that everyone wants, from the one-person startup to the largest companies, consumer and enterprise. This emerging business paradigm will have significant impact across the user experience design process and profession. One area that particularly interests me is, how are we going to evaluate these new emerging “delight and excite” experiences, which are further customized to each particular domain? How to Measure “Delight and Excite” Traditional usability measures of task completion rate, assists, time, and errors are still extremely useful in many situations; however, they are too blunt to offer much insight into emerging experiences “Satisfaction” is usually assessed in user testing, in roughly equivalent importance to the above objective metrics. Various surveys and scales have provided ways to measure satisfying UX, with whatever questions they include. However, to meet the demands of new business goals and keep users at the center of design and development processes, we have to explore new methods to better capture custom-experience goals and emotion-driven user responses. We have had success assessing custom experiences, including “delight and excite”, by employing a variety of user testing methods that tend to combine formative and summative techniques (formative being focused more on identifying usability issues and ways to improve design, and summative focused more on metrics). Our most successful tool has been one we’ve been using for a long time, Magnitude Estimation Technique (MET). But it’s not necessarily about MET as a measure, rather how it is created. Caption: For one client, EchoUser did two rounds of testing.  Each test was a mix of performing representative tasks and gathering qualitative impressions. Each user participated in an in-person moderated 1-on-1 session for 1 hour, using a testing set-up where they held the phone. The primary goal was to identify usability issues and recommend design improvements. MET is based on a definition of the desired experience, which users will then use to rate items of interest (usually tasks in a usability test). In other words, a custom experience definition needs to be created. This can then be used to measure satisfaction in accomplishing tasks; “delight and excite”; or anything else from strategic goals, user demands, or elsewhere. For reference, our standard MET definition in usability testing is: “User experience is your perception of how easy to use, well designed and productive an interface is to complete tasks.” Articulating the User Experience We’ve helped construct experience definitions for several clients to better match their business goals. One example is a modification of the above that was needed for a company that makes medical-related products: “User experience is your perception of how easy to use, well-designed, productive and safe an interface is for conducting tasks. ‘Safe’ is how free an environment (including devices, software, facilities, people, etc.) is from danger, risk, and injury.” Another example is from a company that is pushing hard to incorporate “delight” into their enterprise business line: “User experience is your perception of a product’s ease of use and learning, satisfaction and delight in design, and ability to accomplish objectives.” I find the last one particularly compelling in that there is little that identifies the experience as being for a highly technical enterprise application. That definition could easily be applied to any number of consumer products. We have gone further than the above, including “sexy” and “cool” where decision-makers insisted they were part of the desired experience. We also applied it to completely different experiences where the “interface” was, for example, riding public transit, the “tasks” were train rides, and we followed the participants through the train-riding journey and rated various aspects accordingly: “A good public transportation experience is a cost-effective way of reliably, conveniently, and safely getting me to my intended destination on time.” To construct these definitions, we’ve employed both bottom-up and top-down approaches, depending on circumstances. For bottom-up, user inputs help dictate the terms that best fit the desired experience (usually by way of cluster and factor analysis). Top-down depends on strategic, visionary goals expressed by upper management that we then attempt to integrate into product development (e.g., “delight and excite”). We like a combination of both approaches to push the innovation envelope, but still be mindful of current user concerns. Hopefully the idea of crafting your own custom experience, and a way to measure it, can provide you with some ideas how you can adapt your user experience needs to whatever company you are in. Whether product-development or service-oriented, nearly every company is ultimately providing a user experience. The Bottom Line Creating great experiences may have been popularized by Steve Jobs and Apple, but I’ll be honest, it’s a good feeling to be moving from “good enough” to “delight and excite,” despite the challenge that entails. In fact, it’s because of that challenge that we will expand what we do as UX professionals to help deliver and assess those experiences. I’m excited to see how we, Oracle, and the rest of the industry will live up to that challenge.

    Read the article

  • rspec & rails 3 cannot find model object

    - by Ceilingfish
    I'm trying to put some specs around a new rails 3 project I am working on, and my first test doesn't seem to be able to find a model. I've installed rspec from the command line using: sudo gem install rspec --pre and then I put the following in my Gemfile gem "rspec-rails", ">= 2.0.0.beta.1" But when I run my test I get ./spec/models/world_spec.rb:1: uninitialized constant World (NameError) rake aborted! Command /opt/local/bin/ruby -Ilib -Ispec "./spec/models/world_spec.rb" failed /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-core-2.0.0.beta.4/lib/rspec/core/rake_task.rb:71:in `define' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:1112:in `verbose' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-core-2.0.0.beta.4/lib/rspec/core/rake_task.rb:57:in `send' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-core-2.0.0.beta.4/lib/rspec/core/rake_task.rb:57:in `define' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:636:in `call' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:636:in `execute' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:631:in `each' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:631:in `execute' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:597:in `invoke_with_call_chain' /opt/local/lib/ruby/1.8/monitor.rb:242:in `synchronize' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:590:in `invoke_with_call_chain' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:583:in `invoke' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2051:in `invoke_task' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2029:in `top_level' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2029:in `each' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2029:in `top_level' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2068:in `standard_exception_handling' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2023:in `top_level' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2001:in `run' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2068:in `standard_exception_handling' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:1998:in `run' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/bin/rake:31 /opt/local/bin/rake:19:in `load' /opt/local/bin/rake:19 My spec is in spec/models/world_spec.rb, and looks like describe World, "#hello" do it "should be invalid" do World.new.should be_invalid? end end I tried adding a line like require "app/model/world" and require "world" but to no success. Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • What’s the status of CAT.NET?

    - by Troy Hunt
    I’m trying to find Microsoft CAT.NET for VS2010 and it looks like there was a beta of their 2.0 version but every link to it in Microsoft Connect is now dead. This is the most recent reference I could find: http://blogs.msdn.com/securitytools/archive/2010/02/05/how-to-use-cat-net-2-0-beta.aspx Some references suggest it may have been rolled into FxCop. Does anyone know the status of the project?

    Read the article

  • Users need Silverlight 4.0 for Expression Blend?

    - by Mohit Deshpande
    I have Visual Studio 2010 beta 2 installed and Expression Blend Preview for .NET 4. When I began to debug it, it asked me to install Silverlight 4.0 beta. So now I am wondering if people who are going to view my application need to install Silverlight 4.0 instead of Silverlight 3.5. If so, how can I downgrade from 4.0 to 3.5?

    Read the article

  • How Do I Setup Multiple Stores Using Magento Like Their Demo?

    - by FergatROn
    I'm playing with Magento and I figured out how to create multiple websites and stores and store views, but when I go back to the home page it certainly doesn't look as cool as the Magento Demo (http://www.magento-mall.com/). Are the tabs something they did in the HTML and the store domains are really masking to the ugly store URL? Example: www.kayferg-store1.com = masks to beta.kayferg.com/magento/index.php/?___store=[STORE1] www.kayferg-store2.com = masks to beta.kayferg.com/magento/index.php/?___store=[STORE2]

    Read the article

  • VSLauncher starts wrong version

    - by Matthew Scouten
    I have 3 versions of Visual Studio installed, and 3 projects that require a specific version. VSLauncher USED to look at the SLN or VCPROJ file and open the correct version of Visual Studio. Now it only starts the most recent version, regardless of the project. Note that this has nothing to do with the commonly reported problem with beta versions of VS. none of the SLNs have ever been touched by a beta VS.

    Read the article

  • WCF RIA Services Silverlight 3.0

    - by John
    Hi, I have downloaded WCF RIA Services Beta from the following website: WCF RIA Services Beta for Visual Studio 2008 SP1 http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=76bb3a07-3846-4564-b0c3-27972bcaabce&displaylang=en#filelist But I am unable to add a reference to the following assembly : system.Windows.Ria.Data I searched at the downloaded location c:\Program files\Microsoft SDK's\RIA Services but i am unable to find this dll. Would appreciate if you could point me what I am missing here.

    Read the article

  • NUnit isn't running VS10 code

    - by Ball
    I'm trying to load a Visual Studio 2010 beta dll into the NUnit GUI. I get a popup error. This assembly is built by a runtime newer than the currently loaded runtime and cannot be loaded. You may be attempting to load an assembly build with a leter version of the CLR than the version under which NUnit is currently running. How do I force an executable to run under .NET 4 beta?

    Read the article

  • Which versions of NLog work with VS2010 RTM?

    - by Jaxidian
    Taking a look at NLog, it's unclear what version works with VS2010. It says that NLog 1.0 Refresh works with VS2010 beta but nothing else is indicated. There's an NLog 2.0 that is pre-beta that I'd rather not use if I didn't have to but it clearly does work with VS2010. So I'm wondering if I'm able to use 1.0 Refresh or do I need to go with 2.0 Preview 2?

    Read the article

  • What should I use as my connect URL when using FB AUTHENTICATION?

    - by adam
    { "error": { "type": "OAuthException", "message": "Invalid redirect_uri: The Facebook Connect cross-domain receiver URL (http://www.beta.neighborrow.com.com/callback) must have the application's Connect URL (http://www.beta.neighborrow.com/callback/) as a prefix. You can configure the Connect URL in the <a href=\"http://www.facebook.com/developers/editapp.php?app_id=2233125716\">Application Settings Editor</a>." } } What should I use as my connect URL

    Read the article

  • "Subclassing" show in Haskell?

    - by me2
    Lets say I have the following: data Greek = Alpha | Beta | Gamma | Phi deriving Show I want to use the default showing of all items except Beta, which I want to say "two". Can I do this?

    Read the article

  • Can I use CodeRush Xpress in Visual Studio 2010?

    - by Tomas Lycken
    I've installed the Beta 1 of Visual Studio 2010, and started working a little. Even though I haven't been using CodeRush Xpress for long in Visual Studio 2008, I immediately started missing some of the neat functionality. Is there any way to install CodeRush Xpress on Visual Studio 2010, even though it's only the Beta yet?

    Read the article

  • AJAX, Subdomains and the 200 OK response.

    - by b. e. hollenbeck
    A non-hypothetical but abstracted situation: I have a domain www.foo.com, from which I'm making an AJAX POST to beta.foo.com. Examining the XHR object, I see a response header of 200 OK, but no response text - I even get a response 12B long, which is the exact response (a 12-character string) that I'm expecting - but the response text is blank. If this is a cross-domain issue, why am I getting 200 OK, and better yet - why am I seeing the PHP functions fire on the beta.foo.com side - yet getting no response?

    Read the article

  • Unix sort keys cause performance problems

    - by KenFar
    My data: It's a 71 MB file with 1.5 million rows. It has 6 fields All six fields combine to form a unique key - so that's what I need to sort on. Sort statement: sort -t ',' -k1,1 -k2,2 -k3,3 -k4,4 -k5,5 -k6,6 -o output.csv input.csv The problem: If I sort without keys, it takes 30 seconds. If I sort with keys, it takes 660 seconds. I need to sort with keys to keep this generic and useful for other files that have non-key fields as well. The 30 second timing is fine, but the 660 is a killer. More details using unix time: sort input.csv -o output.csv = 28 seconds sort -t ',' -k1 input.csv -o output.csv = 28 seconds sort -t ',' -k1,1 input.csv -o output.csv = 64 seconds sort -t ',' -k1,1 -k2,2 input.csv -o output.csv = 194 seconds sort -t ',' -k1,1 -k2,2 -k3,3 input.csv -o output.csv = 328 seconds sort -t ',' -k1,1 -k2,2 -k3,3 -k4,4 input.csv -o output.csv = 483 seconds sort -t ',' -k1,1 -k2,2 -k3,3 -k4,4 -k5,5 input.csv -o output.csv = 561 seconds sort -t ',' -k1,1 -k2,2 -k3,3 -k4,4 -k5,5 -k6,6 input.csv -o output.csv = 660 seconds I could theoretically move the temp directory to SSD, and/or split the file into 4 parts, sort them separately (in parallel) then merge the results, etc. But I'm hoping for something simpler since looks like sort is just picking a bad algorithm. Any suggestions? Testing Improvements using buffer-size: With 2 keys I got a 5% improvement with 8, 20, 24 MB and best performance of 8% improvement with 16MB, but 6% worse with 128MB With 6 keys I got a 5% improvement with 8, 20, 24 MB and best performance of 9% improvement with 16MB. Testing improvements using dictionary order (just 1 run each): sort -d --buffer-size=8M -t ',' -k1,1 -k2,2 input.csv -o output.csv = 235 seconds (21% worse) sort -d --buffer-size=8M -t ',' -k1,1 -k2,2 input.csv -o ouput.csv = 232 seconds (21% worse) conclusion: it makes sense that this would slow the process down, not useful Testing with different file system on SSD - I can't do this on this server now. Testing with code to consolidate adjacent keys: def consolidate_keys(key_fields, key_types): """ Inputs: - key_fields - a list of numbers in quotes: ['1','2','3'] - key_types - a list of types of the key_fields: ['integer','string','integer'] Outputs: - key_fields - a consolidated list: ['1,2','3'] - key_types - a list of types of the consolidated list: ['string','integer'] """ assert(len(key_fields) == len(key_types)) def get_min(val): vals = val.split(',') assert(len(vals) <= 2) return vals[0] def get_max(val): vals = val.split(',') assert(len(vals) <= 2) return vals[len(vals)-1] i = 0 while True: try: if ( (int(get_max(key_fields[i])) + 1) == int(key_fields[i+1]) and key_types[i] == key_types[i+1]): key_fields[i] = '%s,%s' % (get_min(key_fields[i]), key_fields[i+1]) key_types[i] = key_types[i] key_fields.pop(i+1) key_types.pop(i+1) continue i = i+1 except IndexError: break # last entry return key_fields, key_types While this code is just a work-around that'll only apply to cases in which I've got a contiguous set of keys - it speeds up the code by 95% in my worst case scenario.

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 Enterprise MAK needs Reactivation?

    - by chris
    I have a VMware image that contains our "standard workstation" where I do a lot of testing. I used a Windows 7 Enterprise MAK key (from MSDN) for activation because the doc said that MAK keys don't have to be reactivated when the hardware changes. Activation was done with slmgr.vbs /ipk LICENSE-KEY slmgr.vbs /ato Now after some testing where the virtual hw was changed it says it "needs to activate because the hw has changed". What did I do wrong?

    Read the article

  • My server is slower than the average user's computer, should I still offload Access queries to SQL Server? [closed]

    - by andrewb
    Possible Duplicate: How do you do Load Testing and Capacity Planning for Databases I have a database set up with MS Access 2007 front ends and an SQL Server 2005 back end. At the moment, all the queries are saved in the front end as I've only recently moved to an SQL Server backend. I'm wondering how much of those queries I should save as stored procedures/views on SQL Server. About the system The number of concurrent users is only a handful, though it could be as high as 25 at one time (very unlikely). The average computer has an Intel i3-2120 CPU running at 3.3 GHz, which gets a PassMark score of 3,987, whilst the server has an Intel Xeon E5335 running at 2.0 GHz, which gets a PassMark score of 2,637. Always an awkward situation when an i3 outperforms a Xeon... though the i3 is from Q1 2011 and the Xeon is Q2 2009. There is potential for a server upgrade in the future, though it wouldn't come easy. I'm inclined to move the queries to the back end, as they are beginning to take noticeable time and I figure that is a better way of doing things. I like the idea of throwing everything at the server, then pushing for a server upgrade. It makes more sense in my mind to be upgrading one server rather than 30 PCs. Or am I being overzealous? Why my question isn't a duplicate It seems that my question has been misinterpreted and labelled a duplicate of quite a different question, one about testing and capacity planning. I'll try explain how my question is very different from the linked question. The crux of my question is something like "Even though my server is technically slower, is it better to have it doing more of the queries?" There's two ways that people could have answered this: I agree the server is going to be slower, but the extra benefits of such and such (like the less Access the better) means you should move most to the server anyway. (OR no it doesn't outweigh the benefit, keep them in Access) Actually the server will be faster because of such and such. I'm hoping that people out there could provide some answers like this, and the question in the dupe link doesn't really provide either of these answers. Ok sure, I suppose I could do extensive performance testing to compare Access queries running on a local machine to SQL Server queries running on the server, but that sounds like a very hard task (particularly performance testing of access) compared to someone giving some quick general guidance, and again, my question is looking for a lot more than immediate performance benefit.

    Read the article

  • Mac OS X Leopard Kernel Panics getting absurd

    - by Henri Watson
    Today Mac OS X kernel panicked twice on me. The first time, I got this log. The second time, I got this log. A few minutes ago, iTunes started sounding blocky, after quitting FireFox everything went back to normal, I am currently using Opera. These are my system's specs. EDIT: I ran the apple hardware test and got these results. Without extended testing: With extended testing:

    Read the article

  • Limit user profile on specific OU using Group Policy

    - by Sergei
    We have a host that will be used for creating VM clones from time to time for testing purposes.It is used actively for testing and users tend to keep a lot of files in their profiles.We would like to limit users profile size to avoid cloning unnecessary files to new VMs. Is there way to impose limit on user profile on OU level without introducing roaming profiles?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168  | Next Page >